Running a Tvijo pilot and measuring the benefit
A pilot that can be judged: one workflow, one acceptance check, four numbers per week, and exit criteria agreed before the first task.
🎯 Для Sponsors of a pilot
- Agree the gates before the first task
- Report four numbers per week
- Define exit criteria in both directions
Цю сторінку ще не перекладено. Ви читаєте англійський оригінал.
A pilot is not "let the team try it for a month". It is one workflow, one acceptance check, a fixed set of numbers, and exit criteria agreed before the first task runs. Without those, the only possible result is an opinion.
🧭 Step 1 — pick one workflow, not a department
Good pilot candidates share three properties:
- the output is checkable (a test passes, a document matches a template, a query returns the expected result);
- the work is repeated (so a small improvement compounds);
- a mistake is cheap and visible (so nobody has to trust the pilot blindly).
Bad candidates: anything that ends in a customer-facing promise on day one, anything involving regulated personal data, anything with no acceptance check.
🧭 Step 2 — agree the gates
| Gate | Question | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Data class | What may be sent, and what may never be sent? | Security / DPO |
| Accounts | Who gets an account, on which route class? | Team lead |
| Budget | Daily and per-task caps for the pilot | Finance / lead |
| Actions | May the worker write files? Run commands? Deploy? | Technical owner |
| Exit criteria | What result ends the pilot — in both directions? | Sponsor |
Write them down. "We'll see how it goes" is not a gate, and it guarantees that the pilot's cost cannot be attributed to anything.
🧭 Step 3 — measure four numbers, every week
| Metric | Definition | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted results | Outputs that passed the acceptance check | Check log |
| Cycle time | Request → accepted result, not request → first text | Timestamps |
| Cost per accepted result | Sum of task receipts ÷ accepted results | Usage ledger |
| Human interventions | Manual fixes, re-runs, re-scopes | Task log |
Two derived numbers are worth reporting but not optimising directly:
- Rework rate — accepted results ÷ all produced results.
- Cost of the discarded work — receipts of tasks whose output was rejected. This is the number pilots usually hide, and it is often the largest one in week one.
Do not report "time saved" without a baseline. If the team did not do this work before the pilot, there is nothing to compare against — say so.
🧭 Step 4 — instrument before you start
You need, from day one:
- the receipt of every task (provider, model, tokens, spend, state);
- the acceptance check, run by a person or a script, with a timestamp;
- a count of manual corrections;
- a list of incidents (data sent by mistake, a wrong action, an outage).
If any of these is missing, the pilot's conclusion will be a story rather than a result.
🧭 Step 5 — weekly review, written
A 20-minute weekly review with a one-page note:
- what was accepted, what was rejected, and why;
- cost per accepted result, and its trend;
- interventions and their causes;
- one change for next week;
- risks that appeared.
Four of these notes are worth more than a final slide deck, because they show the trend rather than the summary.
➡️ Exit criteria — both directions
Agree in advance what would make you:
- expand (accepted-result ratio above X, cost per accepted result below Y, no data incidents);
- stop (ratio below X after two iterations, an unresolved data incident, or a cost curve that does not bend).
A pilot with only an expansion criterion is a purchase with extra steps.
🚧 When this does NOT work
- You cannot define acceptance. Then you cannot measure anything; fix that first.
- The workflow is not repeated. One-off work cannot show a trend.
- You need a guarantee of savings. Tvijo gives you receipts, not a promise. Savings are computed from your before/after numbers.
- The team cannot change its process. A tool that is bolted onto an unchanged process usually shows cost without benefit — and that is a valid finding.
➡️ Next
- Costs, budgets and limits — reading the ledger you will report from.
- Permissions and data flow — the data gate in detail.
- AI judging — the acceptance check the metrics depend on.
Джерела
Each source was opened by a human on the date shown. Product behaviour is described from this deployment, not from marketing material.
🔗 Зв'язки статті
Відкрити повний граф знань ↗Наступні кроки
Пов'язані матеріали
DSHREM robustness audit, October 2026
Six defects found in cancellation, retry, fallback and cost accounting. One money bug is fixed and covered by tests; five remain open with exact locations.
Витрати, доступ і відновленняRecovery after a failed, stuck or uncertain run
No automatic paid retries, an uncertain task blocks further spend, and reconcile never resends inference. The exact commands to get unstuck.
Витрати, доступ і відновленняPermissions and data flow
What leaves your machine, what stays local, and which actions need an explicit human decision — including the licence question people skip.
Витрати, доступ і відновленняCosts, budgets and limits
Every task has a cap, every attempt is counted, and an unknown cost is shown as unknown. The arithmetic behind the receipt.
💬 Коментарі